1. Smerit limit per post. Earning merits is generally hard, which makes them valuable on this forum. However, some people receive 15 or 20 merits for a single post, while others have only 15 merits, which they earned slowly from different people and for different posts. I think it would be better to make it impossible to send more than 5 merits for a specific post by one person. So, if the post is really good, then it can earn about 20 merits, but those merits must be sent by at least 4 different people.
Nah, not required. There are posts that deserve way more than just 15-20 merits. And this can also be abused by giving merits to different posts of the same topic,thus nullifying the restriction.
2. Maximum 2 merits per post per merit sender in local boards. I think that people usually trade merits in small threads in local boards, because the moderation there is not as strict as in the English sections of this forum. If one can send 5 merits for a post written in English, I think it is fair that only 2 merits can be sent for a non-English post.
Please no. There are a few merit sources in the local boards, and there are a few good posts there that deserve more than just 2 merits, and it would injustice, for discriminating against local boards.
3. No Signature campaigns without escrows. I know that scamming on signature campaigns is not common, but why not to make it impossible? Most of legit campaigns escrow the funds anyway, so I guess making it a must should not be a problem.
Not required either, a few campaigns pay directly from their website to its users. Escrows have known to flee away, trust no one.
4. No Signature campaigns for projects with bad reputation. Betcoin.ag accounts had red trust on this forum due to the infamous jackpot scam, but they were still advertising themselves for at least a year after that incident. I think it would be fair to forbid scamming projects to advertise themselves on this forum.
Again no. Its up to the people to decide which campaign they are to join.
5. No ANN threads for shady ICOs. We all know the statistics on ICOs. While I find the general idea very appealing, the fact that most of ICOs are scamming people harms the reputation of the crypto market. I think there should be some requirements every ICO has to meet to officially enter bitcointalk.org. Among such requirements I would name an official website with a whitepaper, team and roadmap listed on it.
You can't determine between a shady ICO , almost every single ICO is shady. Though this might help to weed out the spammers, no one has the time to give a proper check.
6. Rank requirement for signature campaign managers. Sometimes people with zero trust on Member or perhaps even a Junior Member rank lead signature campaigns. I think that people need experience on the forum to be Signature campaign managers. They need to know what it considered good post quality and what is bad; in which topics participants should not be welcomed to post; which projects mainly prefer specific forum sections and childboards etc. It truly seems strange to me when a Member decides which Legendary members to accept to a specific campaign. From my experience they usually don't bother making hard decisions, so they simply accept the first ones who applied. Anyway, I suggest that only people with membership rank of Senior Member and higher are allowed to lead Signature campaigns. I guess we should exclude copper members here as well, but I am not sure about that.
You don't have to force members to be high ranked,inorder to manage campaigns. Some ICOs manage their own campaigns. They can manage campaigns, so long as they don't just let their participants to spam all across the forum.
7. theymos introduces official set of rules for the forum and guidelines for signature campaign managers. That's all we need. And fuck cloudfare.